14901 2007-08-08 02:53:52 -0700 for in loop on an Array does not work 2008-09-18 01:54:23 -0700 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit JavaScriptCore 419.x Mac OS X 10.4 RESOLVED INVALID P2 Normal --- 0 atrasatti webkit-unassigned ap mitz wesc oldest_to_newest 2829 0 atrasatti 2007-08-08 02:53:52 -0700 I created a test Array with 3 elements, tried to cycle with a for in loop. Safari simply does not enter the loop. This is a sample script I wrote: var mycars=new Array(); mycars[0]='Saab'; mycars[1]='Volvo'; mycars[2]='BMW'; ". for (i=0;i<mycars.length;i++) { alert('car maker id'+i+', name '+mycars[i]); } 2830 1 atrasatti 2007-08-08 03:07:27 -0700 (In reply to comment #0) Obviously the submitted code sample was wrong. What I wanted to submit as a sample is: var mycars=new Array(); mycars[0]='Saab'; mycars[1]='Volvo'; mycars[2]='BMW'; for (var i in mycars) { alert('car maker id'+i+', name '+mycars[i]); } 2833 2 15867 ap 2007-08-08 06:29:36 -0700 Created attachment 15867 test (works for me) Same test in an attachment. Seems to work fine in shipping 10.4.10 Safari/WebKit, and also with nightly r24875. 2835 3 15868 atrasatti 2007-08-08 07:06:45 -0700 Created attachment 15868 test that does not work for me 2836 4 atrasatti 2007-08-08 07:08:23 -0700 (In reply to comment #2) > Created an attachment (id=15867) [edit] > test (works for me) > > Same test in an attachment. > > Seems to work fine in shipping 10.4.10 Safari/WebKit, and also with nightly > r24875. It is working for me too, actually. Weird how I could not make it work in my page and then created a sample script that worked. The original reason why I filed the bug was this: var children = document.getElementsByTagName('SELECT'); alert(children.length); for (var c in children) { alert('loop '+c); } I left the alerts just for your reference. In my page I have 5 select elements and the first alert correctly says so, but then never gets to the "loop*" alerts. See the new attachment that I have created. I made two versions one that is within a function and one (less readable) directly in the select element. 2837 5 mitz 2007-08-08 07:24:48 -0700 (In reply to comment #4) > var children = document.getElementsByTagName('SELECT'); > alert(children.length); > for (var c in children) { > alert('loop '+c); > } The result of getElementsByName is not an array, it is a NodeList. for-in enumerates properties of the NodeList object. To enumerate the nodes in the NodeList you can do something like for (var i = 0; i < children.length; i++) alert('loop' + children[i]); 2841 6 atrasatti 2007-08-08 08:04:40 -0700 (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > var children = document.getElementsByTagName('SELECT'); > > alert(children.length); > > for (var c in children) { > > alert('loop '+c); > > } > > The result of getElementsByName is not an array, it is a NodeList. for-in > enumerates properties of the NodeList object. To enumerate the nodes in the > NodeList you can do something like > for (var i = 0; i < children.length; i++) > alert('loop' + children[i]); > True, nevertheless for-in works fine on MSIE7 and FF2. Isn't the NodeList enumerated? Why would for work and for-in not? It seems to me like the suggested loop, which is actually the exact same thing I did to fix it with Safari, should behave the same way as a for-in, while the for-in has a more compact syntax and is more readable, in this case. 91509 7 wesc 2008-09-17 12:44:27 -0700 I'm working with Chrome (beta) and having a similar issue with for/in and arrays. Here is my test script: var myarray = [5,3,8,"test","nowork"]; for (var elem in myarray) { document.write("<br>" + elem); } Here is my output: 0 1 2 3 4 It appears to be outputting the array keys instead of the array values. The following code works perfectly, but for my solution, I can't count on contiguous array elements, so this solution requires a lot more logic than a simple for/in loop. for (var ii = 0; ii < myarray.length; ii++) { document.write("<br>" + myarray[ii]); } 91600 8 ap 2008-09-18 01:54:23 -0700 (In reply to comment #6) > True, nevertheless for-in works fine on MSIE7 and FF2. Isn't the NodeList > enumerated? Why would for work and for-in not? I think that this was a bug in WebKit shipping with Safari 2, fixed in Safari 3. However, it's still a bad idea to use for-in with NodeLists. For-in enumerates all properties of NodeList, so you get not only loop 0...loop 4, but also loop length and loop item. This is rarely what is needed. (In reply to comment #7) > 0 > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 I'm getting identical results in Firefox. Since this bug doesn't contain any issues identified as bugs, I'm closing it as INVALID. Please feel free to open new bugs if you disagree - this one contains a lot of confusion between arrays and NodeLists, so it would be better to avoid continuing the discussion here. 15867 2007-08-08 06:29:36 -0700 2007-08-08 06:29:36 -0700 test (works for me) forin.html text/html 176 ap PHNjcmlwdD4KdmFyIG15Y2Fycz1uZXcgQXJyYXkoKTsKbXljYXJzWzBdPSdTYWFiJzsKbXljYXJz WzFdPSdWb2x2byc7Cm15Y2Fyc1syXT0nQk1XJzsKZm9yICh2YXIgaSBpbiBteWNhcnMpIHsKICAg ICAgICBhbGVydCgnY2FyIG1ha2VyIGlkJytpKycsIG5hbWUgJytteWNhcnNbaV0pOwp9Cjwvc2Ny aXB0Pgo= 15868 2007-08-08 07:06:45 -0700 2007-08-08 07:06:45 -0700 test that does not work for me test.html text/html 1731 atrasatti PCFET0NUWVBFIGh0bWwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBYSFRNTCAxLjAgU3RyaWN0Ly9FTiIg Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnL1RSL3hodG1sMS9EVEQveGh0bWwxLXN0cmljdC5kdGQiPgo8aHRt bCB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMTk5OS94aHRtbCIgeG1sOmxhbmc9ImVuIiBsYW5n PSJlbiI+CgkgIDxoZWFkPgoJCSAgICAgIDx0aXRsZT5UZXN0PC90aXRsZT4KCQkJCTxzY3JpcHQ+ CgkJCQkJZnVuY3Rpb24gZm9yaW5fbG9vcCgpIHsKCQkJCQkJdmFyIGNoaWxkcmVuID0gZG9jdW1l bnQuZ2V0RWxlbWVudHNCeVRhZ05hbWUoJ1NFTEVDVCcpOwoJCQkJCQlhbGVydChjaGlsZHJlbi5s ZW5ndGgpOwoJCQkJCQlmb3IgKHZhciBjIGluIGNoaWxkcmVuKSB7CgkJCQkJCQlhbGVydCgnbG9v cCAnK2MpOwoJCQkJCQl9CgkJCQkJfQoJCQkJPC9zY3JpcHQ+CgkgIDwvaGVhZD4KCSAgPGJvZHk+ CgkJICA8Zm9ybSBhY3Rpb249Ii9zYXZlIiAgbWV0aG9kPSJwb3N0IiBpZD0ibm9kZS1mb3JtIiBl bmN0eXBlPSJtdWx0aXBhcnQvZm9ybS1kYXRhIj4KCQkJICA8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSJmb3JtLWl0ZW0i PgoJCQkJICA8c2VsZWN0IG5hbWU9InNlbGVjdF8xIj4KCQkJCQkgIDxvcHRpb24gdmFsdWU9IjEi PjE8L29wdGlvbj4KCQkJCQkgIDxvcHRpb24gdmFsdWU9IjIiPjI8L29wdGlvbj4KCQkJCQkgIDxv cHRpb24gdmFsdWU9IjMiPjM8L29wdGlvbj4KCQkJCQkgIDxvcHRpb24gdmFsdWU9IjQiPjQ8L29w dGlvbj4KCQkJCSAgPC9zZWxlY3Q+CgkJCQkgIDxzZWxlY3QgbmFtZT0ic2VsZWN0XzIiPgoJCQkJ CSAgPG9wdGlvbiB2YWx1ZT0iMSI+MTwvb3B0aW9uPgoJCQkJCSAgPG9wdGlvbiB2YWx1ZT0iMiI+ Mjwvb3B0aW9uPgoJCQkJCSAgPG9wdGlvbiB2YWx1ZT0iMyI+Mzwvb3B0aW9uPgoJCQkJCSAgPG9w dGlvbiB2YWx1ZT0iNCI+NDwvb3B0aW9uPgoJCQkJICA8L3NlbGVjdD4KCQkJCSAgPHNlbGVjdCBu YW1lPSJzZWxlY3RfMyI+CgkJCQkJICA8b3B0aW9uIHZhbHVlPSIxIj4xPC9vcHRpb24+CgkJCQkJ ICA8b3B0aW9uIHZhbHVlPSIyIj4yPC9vcHRpb24+CgkJCQkJICA8b3B0aW9uIHZhbHVlPSIzIj4z PC9vcHRpb24+CgkJCQkJICA8b3B0aW9uIHZhbHVlPSI0Ij40PC9vcHRpb24+CgkJCQkgIDwvc2Vs ZWN0PgoJCQkJICA8c2VsZWN0IG5hbWU9InNlbGVjdF80IiBvbmNoYW5nZT0iZm9yaW5fbG9vcCgp Ij4KCQkJCQkgIDxvcHRpb24gdmFsdWU9IjEiPjE8L29wdGlvbj4KCQkJCQkgIDxvcHRpb24gdmFs dWU9IjIiPjI8L29wdGlvbj4KCQkJCQkgIDxvcHRpb24gdmFsdWU9IjMiPjM8L29wdGlvbj4KCQkJ CQkgIDxvcHRpb24gdmFsdWU9IjQiPjQ8L29wdGlvbj4KCQkJCSAgPC9zZWxlY3Q+CgkJCQkgIDxz ZWxlY3QgbmFtZT0ic2VsZWN0XzUiIG9uY2hhbmdlPSJ2YXIgY2hpbGRyZW4gPSBkb2N1bWVudC5n ZXRFbGVtZW50c0J5VGFnTmFtZSgnU0VMRUNUJyk7IGFsZXJ0KGNoaWxkcmVuLmxlbmd0aCk7IGZv ciAodmFyIGMgaW4gY2hpbGRyZW4pIHsgYWxlcnQoJ2xvb3AgJytjKTsgfSI+CgkJCQkJICA8b3B0 aW9uIHZhbHVlPSIxIj4xPC9vcHRpb24+CgkJCQkJICA8b3B0aW9uIHZhbHVlPSIyIj4yPC9vcHRp b24+CgkJCQkJICA8b3B0aW9uIHZhbHVlPSIzIj4zPC9vcHRpb24+CgkJCQkJICA8b3B0aW9uIHZh bHVlPSI0Ij40PC9vcHRpb24+CgkJCQkgIDwvc2VsZWN0PgoJCQkgIDwvZGl2PgoJCSAgPC9mb3Jt PgoJICA8L2JvZHk+CjwvaHRtbD4K